4.2 Article

Randomised controlled trial of intravenous maintenance fluids

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
Volume 45, Issue 1-2, Pages 9-14

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01254.x

Keywords

child; fluid therapy; infusion; intravenous

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Traditional paediatric intravenous maintenance fluids are prescribed using hypotonic fluids and the weight-based 4: 2: 1 formula for administration rate. However, this may cause hyponatraemia in sick and post-operative children. We studied the effect of two types of intravenous maintenance fluid and two administration rates on plasma sodium concentration in intensive care patients. Methods: A Factorial-design, double-blind, randomised controlled trial was used. We randomised 50 children with normal electrolytes without hypoglycaemia who needed intravenous maintenance fluids for >12 h to 0.9% saline (normal saline) or 4% dextrose and 0.18% saline (dextrose saline), at either the traditional maintenance fluid rate or 2/3 of that rate. The main outcome measure was change in plasma sodium from admission to 12-24 h later. Results: Fifty patients (37 surgical) were enrolled. Plasma sodium fell in all groups: mean fall 2.3 (standard deviation 4.0) mmol/L. Fluid type (P = 0.0063) but not rate (P = 0.12) was significantly associated with fall in plasma sodium. Dextrose saline produced a greater fall in plasma sodium than normal saline: difference 3.0, 95% confidence interval 0.8-5.1 mmol/L. Full maintenance rate produced a greater fall in plasma sodium than restricted rate, but the difference was small and non-significant: 1.6(-0.7, 3.9) mmol/L. Fluid type, but not rate, remained significant after adjustment for surgical status. One patient, receiving normal saline at restricted rate, developed asymptomatic hypoglycaemia. Conclusion: Sick and post-operative children given dextrose saline at traditional maintenance rates are at risk of hyponatraemia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available